We are a democracy, but we are also a nation of laws. We have courts to determine the rule of law, and often their rulings go against the will of the majority. I have no interest in taking up the banner of civil unions, which is really just a weasel word that pleases no one.
Why? Give me any reason why 'Civil Unions for everyone' is worse than 'Marriage for everyone' which doesn't rely on some magic in the word Marry, or on a simple desire to rub it in the face of people who might disagree with you.
It's politically untenable to abolish the institution of civil marriage, even if you provide for civil unions in the same sentence on the legislation.
It's also a lot easier to get 'marriage for everyone' as you cannot carve out niches in the equal protection clause. Either it protects equality of rights from discrimination, or it only protects the majority's rights. The current paradigm really has not justification legally; it's just that SCOTUS is afraid to touch it, and politicians don't mind writing illegal laws if it gets them votes.
Do you have the right to hover above the ground? Or the right to shoot laser beams from your eyes? Does a man have a right to give birth? Or the right to breathe helium instead of air?
I have the right to equal protection and provision under law and the law cannot discriminate against me on the basis of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. What does violating the laws of physics have to do with that?
This is the counter argument you face, which, hate it as you may carries enormous weight against marriages for all even in the face of equal protection.
o_O
I cannot fly therefore we should be legally obliged to discriminate against homosexuals by statute? That is an argument that carries weight?
You do not have the right to do something impossible, and many people believe that for a man to marry a man is impossible. Civil Unions do not face that problem.
How is it physically impossible for one man to enter into a civil contract with another man? Or two women for that matter?
We are a democracy, but we are also a nation of laws. We have courts to determine the rule of law, and often their rulings go against the will of the majority. I have no interest in taking up the banner of civil unions, which is really just a weasel word that pleases no one.
Why? Give me any reason why 'Civil Unions for everyone' is worse than 'Marriage for everyone' which doesn't rely on some magic in the word Marry, or on a simple desire to rub it in the face of people who might disagree with you.
Give me any reason why "Civil Unions for everyone" is better than "Marriage for everyone" which doesn't rely on some magic in the word "Marry".
So if "Marriage" and "marriage" are two different things (again, this is all you, it's the first I've heard of it and I'm pretty sure you made it up on the spot) why can't marriage happen for the GLBT community too? If the distinction is so obvious, then why is there even a problem? Why do we have to resort to renaming everything?
Well, I thought it would be a good idea because I thought that the progressive members of a society would be happy to move on and achieve rights and equality, and not get caught up in a meaningless word. However it would seem that you and others like you are just as insanely caught up in the word as the religious people are. You will claim it is a secular institution, they will claim it is a religious one, and gay couples will have no rights because you are caught up in arguing over a magic word.
Its not about love, its not about rainbows and magic like you seem to believe. It's about simple legal rights. It's about the right to make a medical decision when your partner is incapacitated. Its about the right to inherit a shared residence. It's about the right to declare a dependent to the IRS. Legal Rights should be given the name which is most acceptable to the most people, not the name you think is grounded in magic and bunnies. You want your magic and bunnies in your relationship? Go to a church and get it.
Two huge court cases beg to differ with you. Brown vs Board of Education and Roe vs Wade both went against the will of the people and the rule of law has not broken down as a result.
I'm not treating it like a magic word. Where the fuck are you getting that?
All I've argued is that I'm not really willing to give the fundies an inch. This issue has one answer, and saying "civil unions for all" acts like the fundies have some sort of reasonable position that needs to be considered before a solution can happen, which is demonstrably false.
So get off this strawman about me thinking it's magical. You're making shit up. I don't think it's magic, I think it's about the right to be equal under the law. We shouldn't have to change the name and status in an effort to allow gays to get married, regardless of whether or not it's for straight couples too. That gives the bigots power that they very clearly do not deserve.
Unfortunately we live in a thing called a democracy, where if the courts continue to use their powers to legislate against the will of the people the rule of law will break down. The courts do have the power to legislate against their will it is true, but the purpose of that is to work against reactionary and short termist thinking. People will be furious with gay people for decades to come. Force it through in the courts, and all that will happen is the election of new more conservative judges who will overturn the decision of the previous court. To make real progress, you must make compromises no matter how angry that may make you.
Civil Unions for everyone is exactly the same as marriages for everyone, and easier to achieve. The only difference is a single word, which, if it is just a way of describing something should have to you an importance of ZERO. Even the net effect is 10 more people swung to your cause, then this is the way you should be going. Heck, a happy gay community and 10 extra happy old people is better than just a happy gay community.
Imagine this, the law is passed, and the King of the World has agreed that gay couples shall be allowed to marry across the land. You have been selected to sign the law, as a contributor to it's passage, as has a Bishop who has agreed to stop being a bigot and hating people. However, he is going to stand on the right and get to sign first. By social standards this is a snub to you, and your cause. Will you refuse to show up just because of this imagined slight, or will you realize that you give up NOTHING and gain the rights you want.
Unfortunately we live in a thing called a democracy, where if the courts continue to use their powers to legislate against the will of the people the rule of law will break down. The courts do have the power to legislate against their will it is true, but the purpose of that is to work against reactionary and short termist thinking. People will be furious with gay people for decades to come.
Like they were furious with black people after Brown right?
We live in a Constitutional Republic whose philosophical underpinnings is fundamentally based on "All Men are Created Equal." This is the justification for democracy but also for not discriminating against homosexuals.
Well, more than that in how we live in a government that is based on the premise, and laws enumerating it, of majority rule with minority rights. Homosexuals are a minority being illegally denied their rights.
We are a democracy, but we are also a nation of laws. We have courts to determine the rule of law, and often their rulings go against the will of the majority. I have no interest in taking up the banner of civil unions, which is really just a weasel word that pleases no one.
Why? Give me any reason why 'Civil Unions for everyone' is worse than 'Marriage for everyone' which doesn't rely on some magic in the word Marry, or on a simple desire to rub it in the face of people who might disagree with you.
Give me any reason why "Civil Unions for everyone" is better than "Marriage for everyone" which doesn't rely on some magic in the word "Marry".
Many people do attach a magical significance to the world marry, and the people who do so are notoriously difficult to persuade to change their minds about the things they attach magical significance to. By removing ourselves slightly from their issue, we make precisely zero real concessions, and numerous members of this group will now support us rather than oppose us.
You do not have the right to do something impossible, and many people believe that for a man to marry a man is impossible. Civil Unions do not face that problem.
They have to demonstrate that it's objectively impossible, and that's something they are completely and totally incapable of doing because it's not actually impossible. What they say or what they think doesn't matter. Only reality matters.
And we're not trying to get them to think like us or whatever other claim you want to make up again, we're saying that they don't matter. They can think what they want, they can vote how they want, but they still voted in something that is wholly illegal and their will doesn't matter one iota when they do some shit like that.
Wonder_Hippie on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
edited January 2009
tbl, I wish you'd address my non-magical objection to civil unions. I think it's pretty good.
Do you have the right to hover above the ground? Or the right to shoot laser beams from your eyes? Does a man have a right to give birth? Or the right to breathe helium instead of air?
I have the right to equal protection and provision under law and the law cannot discriminate against me on the basis of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. What does violating the laws of physics have to do with that?
This is the counter argument you face, which, hate it as you may carries enormous weight against marriages for all even in the face of equal protection.
o_O
I cannot fly therefore we should be legally obliged to discriminate against homosexuals by statute? That is an argument that carries weight?
You do not have the right to do something impossible, and many people believe that for a man to marry a man is impossible. Civil Unions do not face that problem.
How is it physically impossible for one man to enter into a civil contract with another man? Or two women for that matter?
It doesn't matter that it clearly is not impossible, but that numerous people believe it is impossible (even amongst judges and lawmakers) and will thus vote against it. To them, "A man should be able to marry a man, no law can take away his rights to do so!" is just as absurd a statement as my example 'A man should be able to breathe helium and live, no law can take away his right to do so!"
Yes, yes this is an argument that carries weight. Go into a church and THIS will be the argument they will use to get people on their side, for the most part it won't be "Gay people are evil" but that "Gay Marriage is simply impossible, the lord has stated that Marriage is between a man and a woman and allowing otherwise will destroy us"
You may want to wish that these numerous people did not exist, that they believed differently, that education could sway some great number of them. However none of these things are true. There are people who believe this at gay rights rallies, there are gay people who believe this! These people are everywhere, and they are the reason these bills don't just walk into law despite the fact of how hard it is to find people who seem to be willing to admit a true hatred of gay people even in private company.
tbloxham on
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
All I've argued is that I'm not really willing to give the fundies an inch. This issue has one answer, and saying "civil unions for all" acts like the fundies have some sort of reasonable position that needs to be considered before a solution can happen, which is demonstrably false.
This is exactly how I feel. I abhor to make any accommodation for bigots, even an insignificant one— not that I accept that the shared cultural understanding of marriage is insignificant.
Do you know what this makes you? Bigoted against Bigots. You have cast them as non people, whom, even should they request a valueless accommodation to their views should never be accepted. This, while not quite as wrong as their position, is still wrong.
I'm gonna go ahead and say that this right here is the right solution to the problem. Wonder Hippie spells it out pretty clearly: there is only one solution here, if you disagree then you are either a bigot or you're allowing bigotry to sway the rule of law in this country, and in either case you shouldn't be voting.
Many people do attach a magical significance to the world marry...
SHOW WHERE THIS IS HAPPENING IN THIS DEBATE OR DROP IT
This wasn't referring to you, it was referring to religious people across the nation who are your key opponents. Even you cannot say that in your local church they don't think there is something fundamentally special about Marriage.
We are a democracy, but we are also a nation of laws. We have courts to determine the rule of law, and often their rulings go against the will of the majority. I have no interest in taking up the banner of civil unions, which is really just a weasel word that pleases no one.
Why? Give me any reason why 'Civil Unions for everyone' is worse than 'Marriage for everyone' which doesn't rely on some magic in the word Marry, or on a simple desire to rub it in the face of people who might disagree with you.
Give me any reason why "Civil Unions for everyone" is better than "Marriage for everyone" which doesn't rely on some magic in the word "Marry".
Many people do attach a magical significance to the world marry, and the people who do so are notoriously difficult to persuade to change their minds about the things they attach magical significance to. By removing ourselves slightly from their issue, we make precisely zero real concessions, and numerous members of this group will now support us rather than oppose us.
We don't need their support. This isn't an issue to be determined by legislatures or popular action, it already was determined by legislative action over a century ago. It is illegal for the law to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. All that is required is for the Court to officially recognize that fact.
All I've argued is that I'm not really willing to give the fundies an inch. This issue has one answer, and saying "civil unions for all" acts like the fundies have some sort of reasonable position that needs to be considered before a solution can happen, which is demonstrably false.
This is exactly how I feel. I abhor to make any accommodation for bigots, even an insignificant one— not that I accept that the shared cultural understanding of marriage is insignificant.
When my daughter is feeling particularly grumpy, she'll pretty much disagree with you on general principle. Even when you propose a compromise in which she clearly comes out ahead, and tell her the alternative is a time-out, she'll puff out her lip and shout "No!" and make the cutest little huffy-face.
Wait, what are we talking about? My mind was drifting. Not sure where that totally-unrelated-to-anything anecdote came from.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
And why the fuck is wanting to marry my goddamn boyfriend anything at all like demanding the motherfucking right to shoot fucking lasers out of my goddamn eyes
We don't need their support. This isn't an issue to be determined by legislatures or popular action, it already was determined by legislative action over a century ago. It is illegal for the law to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. All that is required is for the Court to officially recognize that fact.
Yes. And the courts are going to get right on that. They clearly have neither the power nor the inclination to, say, refuse to hear any cases that would force them to declare unconstitutional legislation such as - just to pick something completely at random - DOMA.
The courts are pretty clearly moved by popular opinion.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
All I've argued is that I'm not really willing to give the fundies an inch. This issue has one answer, and saying "civil unions for all" acts like the fundies have some sort of reasonable position that needs to be considered before a solution can happen, which is demonstrably false.
This is exactly how I feel. I abhor to make any accommodation for bigots, even an insignificant one— not that I accept that the shared cultural understanding of marriage is insignificant.
When my daughter is feeling particularly grumpy, she'll pretty much disagree with you on general principle. Even when you propose a compromise in which she clearly comes out ahead, and tell her the alternative is a time-out, she'll puff out her lip and shout "No!" and make the cutest little huffy-face.
Wait, what are we talking about? My mind was drifting. Not sure where that totally-unrelated-to-anything anecdote came from.
Because being principled about basic human rights as enumerated by our constitution is totally comparable.
And why the fuck is wanting to marry my goddamn boyfriend anything at all like demanding the motherfucking right to shoot fucking lasers out of my goddamn eyes
They are similar in that I would love to see both.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
We are a democracy, but we are also a nation of laws. We have courts to determine the rule of law, and often their rulings go against the will of the majority. I have no interest in taking up the banner of civil unions, which is really just a weasel word that pleases no one.
Why? Give me any reason why 'Civil Unions for everyone' is worse than 'Marriage for everyone' which doesn't rely on some magic in the word Marry, or on a simple desire to rub it in the face of people who might disagree with you.
There's really nothing magical about it; it's just stupid and needless. Introducing a new term means that a bunch of statutes have to be rewritten to accommodate this new class of contract, and a novel body of case law will inevitably arise from it. If civil unions are indeed identical to marriage in every respect save the name, this is a lot of wasted energy for no reason.
However I feel that this energy would not be wasted, since we are more likely to get 'Civil Unions for all' into law than 'Marriages for all'. Yes, there would be some extra work on the legal side, but I think the law could actually be passed far sooner and everyone would have the rights they want.
In addition it has the advantage of removing any future religious challenge to the legal side of things. The government would have removed yet another, even if it is only implied, association with the church which cannot be anything but good.
All I've argued is that I'm not really willing to give the fundies an inch. This issue has one answer, and saying "civil unions for all" acts like the fundies have some sort of reasonable position that needs to be considered before a solution can happen, which is demonstrably false.
This is exactly how I feel. I abhor to make any accommodation for bigots, even an insignificant one— not that I accept that the shared cultural understanding of marriage is insignificant.
When my daughter is feeling particularly grumpy, she'll pretty much disagree with you on general principle. Even when you propose a compromise in which she clearly comes out ahead, and tell her the alternative is a time-out, she'll puff out her lip and shout "No!" and make the cutest little huffy-face.
Wait, what are we talking about? My mind was drifting. Not sure where that totally-unrelated-to-anything anecdote came from.
While normally I would sorta agree with the point you're making, we're talking about civil rights. There is only one absolutely correct answer, and why should we stop until we get it? (Especially considering the fact that the court in this case doesn't appear afraid to rule that way)
Lord Yod on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
edited January 2009
I simply reject the notion that "civil unions for all" is more likely to occur than gay marriage. There is no evidence for that, and quite a bit of evidence against it.
It doesn't matter that it clearly is not impossible, but that numerous people believe it is impossible (even amongst judges and lawmakers) and will thus vote against it. To them, "A man should be able to marry a man, no law can take away his rights to do so!" is just as absurd a statement as my example 'A man should be able to breathe helium and live, no law can take away his right to do so!"
And those people are wrong. Legally and by any objectionable view of reality. It is physically possible for two adults of the same or opposite sex to enter into legally binding contracts. To argue against this is to argue against the entire legal and economic system that this country is built upon. And no one is making that argument.
Yes, yes this is an argument that carries weight. Go into a church and THIS will be the argument they will use to get people on their side, for the most part it won't be "Gay people are evil" but that "Gay Marriage is simply impossible, the lord has stated that Marriage is between a man and a woman and allowing otherwise will destroy us"
What does the inside of a particular brand of religion, as not all religions are opposed to homosexual marriage, have to do with the legal capacity of two adults?
You may want to wish that these numerous people did not exist, that they believed differently, that education could sway some great number of them. However none of these things are true. There are people who believe this at gay rights rallies, there are gay people who believe this! These people are everywhere, and they are the reason these bills don't just walk into law despite the fact of how hard it is to find people who seem to be willing to admit a true hatred of gay people even in private company.
I don't care that these people exist, they in no way impact the legal argument. Just as the HRC and whatever don't in any way impact the legal argument are are irrelevant as well.
All I've argued is that I'm not really willing to give the fundies an inch. This issue has one answer, and saying "civil unions for all" acts like the fundies have some sort of reasonable position that needs to be considered before a solution can happen, which is demonstrably false.
This is exactly how I feel. I abhor to make any accommodation for bigots, even an insignificant one— not that I accept that the shared cultural understanding of marriage is insignificant.
When my daughter is feeling particularly grumpy, she'll pretty much disagree with you on general principle. Even when you propose a compromise in which she clearly comes out ahead, and tell her the alternative is a time-out, she'll puff out her lip and shout "No!" and make the cutest little huffy-face.
Wait, what are we talking about? My mind was drifting. Not sure where that totally-unrelated-to-anything anecdote came from.
Because being principled about basic human rights as enumerated by our constitution is totally comparable.
Seriously.
So cute.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Yes, yes this is an argument that carries weight. Go into a church and THIS will be the argument they will use to get people on their side, for the most part it won't be "Gay people are evil" but that "Gay Marriage is simply impossible, the lord has stated that Marriage is between a man and a woman and allowing otherwise will destroy us"
What does the inside of a particular brand of religion, as not all religions are opposed to homosexual marriage, have to do with the legal capacity of two adults?
What does the use of a particular word have to do with the legal capacity of two adults?
If you wish to claim the rational ground, then you must be the one to behave rationally. And if you wish to behave rationally you must be willing to make compromises, espescially when those compromises cost you nothing.
Yes, yes this is an argument that carries weight. Go into a church and THIS will be the argument they will use to get people on their side, for the most part it won't be "Gay people are evil" but that "Gay Marriage is simply impossible, the lord has stated that Marriage is between a man and a woman and allowing otherwise will destroy us"
What does the inside of a particular brand of religion, as not all religions are opposed to homosexual marriage, have to do with the legal capacity of two adults?
What does the use of a particular word have to do with the legal capacity of two adults?
If you wish to claim the rational ground, then you must be the one to behave rationally. And if you wish to behave rationally you must be willing to make compromises, espescially when those compromises cost you nothing.
How did the goings-on of a church come into the discussion?
All I've argued is that I'm not really willing to give the fundies an inch. This issue has one answer, and saying "civil unions for all" acts like the fundies have some sort of reasonable position that needs to be considered before a solution can happen, which is demonstrably false.
This is exactly how I feel. I abhor to make any accommodation for bigots, even an insignificant one— not that I accept that the shared cultural understanding of marriage is insignificant.
When my daughter is feeling particularly grumpy, she'll pretty much disagree with you on general principle. Even when you propose a compromise in which she clearly comes out ahead, and tell her the alternative is a time-out, she'll puff out her lip and shout "No!" and make the cutest little huffy-face.
Wait, what are we talking about? My mind was drifting. Not sure where that totally-unrelated-to-anything anecdote came from.
While normally I would sorta agree with the point you're making, we're talking about civil rights. There is only one absolutely correct answer, and why should we stop until we get it? (Especially considering the fact that the court in this case doesn't appear afraid to rule that way)
Because this isn't a Hollywood production and sometimes you must mitigate what you are rightly owed with what it is within your power to obtain?
Long term, everyone should - and, I'm certain, will - have equal rights on the issue of marriage. Short term, I fail to utility in excessively demonizing the Evil Ones in lieu of trying to actually make progress.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Yes, yes this is an argument that carries weight. Go into a church and THIS will be the argument they will use to get people on their side, for the most part it won't be "Gay people are evil" but that "Gay Marriage is simply impossible, the lord has stated that Marriage is between a man and a woman and allowing otherwise will destroy us"
What does the inside of a particular brand of religion, as not all religions are opposed to homosexual marriage, have to do with the legal capacity of two adults?
What does the use of a particular word have to do with the legal capacity of two adults?
If you wish to claim the rational ground, then you must be the one to behave rationally. And if you wish to behave rationally you must be willing to make compromises, espescially when those compromises cost you nothing.
You keep saying this as if there is some kind of compromise on the table. There really isn't. We are no closer to civil unions for the nation than we are gay marriage. DOMA excludes both.
We don't need their support. This isn't an issue to be determined by legislatures or popular action, it already was determined by legislative action over a century ago. It is illegal for the law to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. All that is required is for the Court to officially recognize that fact.
Yes. And the courts are going to get right on that. They clearly have neither the power nor the inclination to, say, refuse to hear any cases that would force them to declare unconstitutional legislation such as - just to pick something completely at random - DOMA.
The courts are pretty clearly moved by popular opinion.
Sometimes, others they like to piss in people's cornflakes for fun. Converting fundies to the right side of history isn't going to have that sort of influence, though. Eventually Roberts is going to pretty much be forced to hear a case. Either due to popular or political opinion. It might be before DoMA gets repealed or after, but it is going to happen at some point.
Long term, everyone should - and, I'm certain, will - have equal rights on the issue of marriage. Short term, I fail to utility in excessively demonizing the Evil Ones in lieu of trying to actually make progress.
If the evil ones in question are struck down in court every time they try something, why should we give a shit what they think?
I simply reject the notion that "civil unions for all" is more likely to occur than gay marriage. There is no evidence for that, and quite a bit of evidence against it.
yeah... you think millions of married americans will allow their marriages to be redefined?
isn't that exactly what the right is railing against?
As a side question, can a state sue to have its marriages recognized in other states, or does that have to be handled by an individual?
That's a pretty good question. I'm pretty sure that states themselves wouldn't have standing. Hopefully Medo or one of the law students on the board can clear this up.
Yes, yes this is an argument that carries weight. Go into a church and THIS will be the argument they will use to get people on their side, for the most part it won't be "Gay people are evil" but that "Gay Marriage is simply impossible, the lord has stated that Marriage is between a man and a woman and allowing otherwise will destroy us"
What does the inside of a particular brand of religion, as not all religions are opposed to homosexual marriage, have to do with the legal capacity of two adults?
What does the use of a particular word have to do with the legal capacity of two adults?
If you wish to claim the rational ground, then you must be the one to behave rationally. And if you wish to behave rationally you must be willing to make compromises, espescially when those compromises cost you nothing.
I don't understand the argument. Ensuring access to civil marriage has a huge lot to do with the legal capacity of two adults. It determines the status of over 1,200 legal rights and privileges. That's why it's an issue in the first place.
As a side question, can a state sue to have its marriages recognized in other states, or does that have to be handled by an individual?
Yeah, I believe they can. The constitution guarantees that contracts issued in one state must be honored in the other states. If a state doesn't honor another state's contract, then that state has standing for breach of contract. I think. IANAL, BTW.
All I've argued is that I'm not really willing to give the fundies an inch. This issue has one answer, and saying "civil unions for all" acts like the fundies have some sort of reasonable position that needs to be considered before a solution can happen, which is demonstrably false.
This is exactly how I feel. I abhor to make any accommodation for bigots, even an insignificant one— not that I accept that the shared cultural understanding of marriage is insignificant.
Do you know what this makes you? Bigoted against Bigots. You have cast them as non people, whom, even should they request a valueless accommodation to their views should never be accepted. This, while not quite as wrong as their position, is still wrong.
I'm gonna go ahead and say that this right here is the right solution to the problem. Wonder Hippie spells it out pretty clearly: there is only one solution here, if you disagree then you are either a bigot or you're allowing bigotry to sway the rule of law in this country, and in either case you shouldn't be voting.
Oh, I see.
So it's not enough to get mere legal rights, you also have to send out a big "Fuck you" to the "fundies" in order for it to REALLY be official.
I have to say, tbloxham, you did something great today. I do believe your "You can't shoot lasers out of your eyes, therefore two dudes can't marry." ranks right up there with such historic gems as "rape instinct" and "rape isn't torture" for sheer stupidity.
You have entered the hallowed halls of D&D's most moronic arguments. Be proud!
Yes, yes this is an argument that carries weight. Go into a church and THIS will be the argument they will use to get people on their side, for the most part it won't be "Gay people are evil" but that "Gay Marriage is simply impossible, the lord has stated that Marriage is between a man and a woman and allowing otherwise will destroy us"
What does the inside of a particular brand of religion, as not all religions are opposed to homosexual marriage, have to do with the legal capacity of two adults?
What does the use of a particular word have to do with the legal capacity of two adults?
If you wish to claim the rational ground, then you must be the one to behave rationally. And if you wish to behave rationally you must be willing to make compromises, espescially when those compromises cost you nothing.
You keep saying this as if there is some kind of compromise on the table. There really isn't. We are no closer to civil unions for the nation than we are gay marriage. DOMA excludes both.
And a key support structure of DOMA is the fact its so easy to motivate people against gay Marriage. By simply trying to get the government out of the marrying game altogether we kick away an important strut.
tbloxham on
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
I'm gonna go ahead and say that this right here is the right solution to the problem. Wonder Hippie spells it out pretty clearly: there is only one solution here, if you disagree then you are either a bigot or you're allowing bigotry to sway the rule of law in this country, and in either case you shouldn't be voting.
Oh, I see.
So it's not enough to get mere legal rights, you also have to send out a big "Fuck you" to the "fundies" in order for it to REALLY be official.
Posts
Ahem. My dictionary here, and Dictionary.com define it thusly
"Bigotry - stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own."
You absolutely can be Bigoted against someone for a choice, decision, or for any reason at all.
I have the right to equal protection and provision under law and the law cannot discriminate against me on the basis of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. What does violating the laws of physics have to do with that?
o_O
I cannot fly therefore we should be legally obliged to discriminate against homosexuals by statute? That is an argument that carries weight?
How is it physically impossible for one man to enter into a civil contract with another man? Or two women for that matter?
Guess I need to go buy some robes and gasoline.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Well, more than that in how we live in a government that is based on the premise, and laws enumerating it, of majority rule with minority rights. Homosexuals are a minority being illegally denied their rights.
Many people do attach a magical significance to the world marry, and the people who do so are notoriously difficult to persuade to change their minds about the things they attach magical significance to. By removing ourselves slightly from their issue, we make precisely zero real concessions, and numerous members of this group will now support us rather than oppose us.
They have to demonstrate that it's objectively impossible, and that's something they are completely and totally incapable of doing because it's not actually impossible. What they say or what they think doesn't matter. Only reality matters.
And we're not trying to get them to think like us or whatever other claim you want to make up again, we're saying that they don't matter. They can think what they want, they can vote how they want, but they still voted in something that is wholly illegal and their will doesn't matter one iota when they do some shit like that.
redacted
It doesn't matter that it clearly is not impossible, but that numerous people believe it is impossible (even amongst judges and lawmakers) and will thus vote against it. To them, "A man should be able to marry a man, no law can take away his rights to do so!" is just as absurd a statement as my example 'A man should be able to breathe helium and live, no law can take away his right to do so!"
Yes, yes this is an argument that carries weight. Go into a church and THIS will be the argument they will use to get people on their side, for the most part it won't be "Gay people are evil" but that "Gay Marriage is simply impossible, the lord has stated that Marriage is between a man and a woman and allowing otherwise will destroy us"
You may want to wish that these numerous people did not exist, that they believed differently, that education could sway some great number of them. However none of these things are true. There are people who believe this at gay rights rallies, there are gay people who believe this! These people are everywhere, and they are the reason these bills don't just walk into law despite the fact of how hard it is to find people who seem to be willing to admit a true hatred of gay people even in private company.
In this instance tbl is referring to social conservatives, and actually has a point here.
I'm gonna go ahead and say that this right here is the right solution to the problem. Wonder Hippie spells it out pretty clearly: there is only one solution here, if you disagree then you are either a bigot or you're allowing bigotry to sway the rule of law in this country, and in either case you shouldn't be voting.
This wasn't referring to you, it was referring to religious people across the nation who are your key opponents. Even you cannot say that in your local church they don't think there is something fundamentally special about Marriage.
We don't need their support. This isn't an issue to be determined by legislatures or popular action, it already was determined by legislative action over a century ago. It is illegal for the law to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. All that is required is for the Court to officially recognize that fact.
When my daughter is feeling particularly grumpy, she'll pretty much disagree with you on general principle. Even when you propose a compromise in which she clearly comes out ahead, and tell her the alternative is a time-out, she'll puff out her lip and shout "No!" and make the cutest little huffy-face.
Wait, what are we talking about? My mind was drifting. Not sure where that totally-unrelated-to-anything anecdote came from.
Yes. And the courts are going to get right on that. They clearly have neither the power nor the inclination to, say, refuse to hear any cases that would force them to declare unconstitutional legislation such as - just to pick something completely at random - DOMA.
The courts are pretty clearly moved by popular opinion.
Because being principled about basic human rights as enumerated by our constitution is totally comparable.
They are similar in that I would love to see both.
However I feel that this energy would not be wasted, since we are more likely to get 'Civil Unions for all' into law than 'Marriages for all'. Yes, there would be some extra work on the legal side, but I think the law could actually be passed far sooner and everyone would have the rights they want.
In addition it has the advantage of removing any future religious challenge to the legal side of things. The government would have removed yet another, even if it is only implied, association with the church which cannot be anything but good.
While normally I would sorta agree with the point you're making, we're talking about civil rights. There is only one absolutely correct answer, and why should we stop until we get it? (Especially considering the fact that the court in this case doesn't appear afraid to rule that way)
And those people are wrong. Legally and by any objectionable view of reality. It is physically possible for two adults of the same or opposite sex to enter into legally binding contracts. To argue against this is to argue against the entire legal and economic system that this country is built upon. And no one is making that argument.
What does the inside of a particular brand of religion, as not all religions are opposed to homosexual marriage, have to do with the legal capacity of two adults?
I don't care that these people exist, they in no way impact the legal argument. Just as the HRC and whatever don't in any way impact the legal argument are are irrelevant as well.
Seriously.
So cute.
If you wish to claim the rational ground, then you must be the one to behave rationally. And if you wish to behave rationally you must be willing to make compromises, espescially when those compromises cost you nothing.
How did the goings-on of a church come into the discussion?
Because this isn't a Hollywood production and sometimes you must mitigate what you are rightly owed with what it is within your power to obtain?
Long term, everyone should - and, I'm certain, will - have equal rights on the issue of marriage. Short term, I fail to utility in excessively demonizing the Evil Ones in lieu of trying to actually make progress.
You keep saying this as if there is some kind of compromise on the table. There really isn't. We are no closer to civil unions for the nation than we are gay marriage. DOMA excludes both.
Sometimes, others they like to piss in people's cornflakes for fun. Converting fundies to the right side of history isn't going to have that sort of influence, though. Eventually Roberts is going to pretty much be forced to hear a case. Either due to popular or political opinion. It might be before DoMA gets repealed or after, but it is going to happen at some point.
If the evil ones in question are struck down in court every time they try something, why should we give a shit what they think?
yeah... you think millions of married americans will allow their marriages to be redefined?
isn't that exactly what the right is railing against?
That's a pretty good question. I'm pretty sure that states themselves wouldn't have standing. Hopefully Medo or one of the law students on the board can clear this up.
I don't understand the argument. Ensuring access to civil marriage has a huge lot to do with the legal capacity of two adults. It determines the status of over 1,200 legal rights and privileges. That's why it's an issue in the first place.
Yeah, I believe they can. The constitution guarantees that contracts issued in one state must be honored in the other states. If a state doesn't honor another state's contract, then that state has standing for breach of contract. I think. IANAL, BTW.
Oh, I see.
So it's not enough to get mere legal rights, you also have to send out a big "Fuck you" to the "fundies" in order for it to REALLY be official.
Flashy and callow.
You have entered the hallowed halls of D&D's most moronic arguments. Be proud!
And a key support structure of DOMA is the fact its so easy to motivate people against gay Marriage. By simply trying to get the government out of the marrying game altogether we kick away an important strut.
What are you talking about